Table 1 Models testing the function of peering

From: Social tolerance and role model diversity increase tool use learning opportunities across chimpanzee ontogeny

Prediction	Response	Term	Estimate	SE	95% CI	95% CI	89% CI	89% CI
Model 1a) Peering will elicit less food transfers than explicit begging behaviour	Food transfers following peering, begging or both in foraging context (yes or no)	Intercept	−1.49	0.66	−2.79	−0.20	−2.52	−0.43
		Age	0.33	0.24	−0.16	0.79	−0.07	0.70
		Age²	−0.73	0.20	−1.15	−0.38	−1.06	−0.45
		Sex (Male)	0.29	0.39	−0.48	1.07	−0.34	0.92
		Maternal rank	−0.28	0.23	−0.72	0.17	−0.63	0.09
		Group North^a	0.28	0.56	−0.82	1.35	−0.62	1.18
		Group South^a	0.11	0.43	−0.72	0.95	−0.56	0.80
		Receiver (Mother)^d	2.33	0.40	1.56	3.14	1.70	2.97
		Receiver (Other)^d	−0.94	0.45	−1.82	−0.06	−1.65	−0.22
		Non extractive^b	−0.21	0.31	−0.8	0.40	−0.69	0.28
		Extractive with tool^b	0.14	0.35	−0.54	0.82	−0.41	0.68
		Peering^c	−1.67	0.41	−2.48	−0.85	−2.31	−1.01
		Peering + Explicit begging^c	0.86	0.39	0.10	1.67	0.25	1.50
		Monopolizability (High)	−0.23	0.37	−0.95	0.51	−0.80	0.35
		Non extractive^c:Peering^c	−0.59	0.37	−1.30	0.15	−1.17	0.00
		Extractive with tool^b:Peering^c	0.74	0.38	0.00	1.48	0.14	1.34
		Non extractive^b:Peering + Explicit begging^c	−0.47	0.35	−1.16	0.21	−1.03	0.09
		Extractive with tool^b:Peering + Explicit begging^c	0.01	0.39	−0.77	0.79	−0.62	0.64
Model 1b) Peering in tool use contexts will induce a higher probability of manipulating tools than explicit begging behaviour	Latency before the manipulation of a tool following peering or explicit begging in tool use context	Intercept	−1.76	0.68	−3.10	−0.40	−2.82	−0.67
		Age	−0.25	0.21	−0.66	0.15	−0.59	0.07
		Receiver (Mother)	0.42	0.35	−0.25	1.14	−0.12	0.98
		Sex (Male)	0.17	0.52	−0.88	1.19	−0.66	1.00
		Party size	0.18	0.20	−0.19	0.59	−0.12	0.50
		Group North^a	0.66	0.73	−0.80	2.04	−0.50	1.80
		Group South^a	−0.08	0.58	−1.23	1.05	−1.01	0.84
		Peering + Explicit begging	−0.14	0.37	−0.87	0.60	−0.73	0.45
		Peering^c	−0.12	0.37	−0.84	0.65	−0.71	0.48
		Food transfer (Yes)	−0.15	0.24	−0.64	0.34	−0.54	0.24
Model 1c) Food processing complexity will increase the relative use of peering compared to explicit begging behaviour	Type of social interaction (Peering) with explicit begging as reference level	Intercept	1.41	0.72	0.00	2.87	0.28	2.59
		Age	0.39	0.32	−0.29	0.99	−0.13	0.88
		Age²	0.35	0.22	−0.08	0.80	0.01	0.70
		Sex (Male)	−0.64	0.48	−1.56	0.31	−1.40	0.14
		Receiver (Mother)^d	−2.27	0.31	−2.90	−1.67	−2.77	−1.79
		Receiver (Other)^d	0.63	0.33	−0.03	1.26	0.11	1.15
		Maternal rank	0.44	0.27	−0.08	0.96	0.01	0.86
		Non extractive^b	−0.16	0.29	−0.73	0.40	−0.62	0.30
		Extractive with tools^b	0.91	0.33	0.24	1.56	0.37	1.44
		Group North^a	0.18	0.67	−1.18	1.49	−0.90	1.24
		Group South^a	−0.07	0.51	−1.05	0.93	−0.87	0.74
	Type of social interaction (Peering) with explicit begging + Peering as reference level	Intercept	−0.76	0.71	−2.17	0.59	−1.90	0.35
		Age	−0.03	0.32	−0.70	0.61	−0.55	0.48
		Age²	−0.03	0.20	−0.46	0.33	−0.36	0.26
		Sex (Male)	0.33	0.44	−0.57	1.20	−0.37	1.02
		Receiver (Mother)^d	−0.03	0.40	−0.80	0.77	−0.66	0.64
		Receiver (Other)^d	−0.36	0.45	−1.21	0.52	−1.06	0.37
		Maternal rank	0.21	0.26	−0.26	0.72	−0.18	0.63
		Non extractive^b	−0.63	0.26	−1.13	−0.11	−1.05	−0.21
		Extractive with tools^b	0.21	0.41	−0.61	1.01	−0.46	0.85
		Group North^a	−0.10	0.65	−1.30	1.20	−1.12	0.94
		Group South^a	−0.07	0.51	−1.05	0.93	−0.87	0.74

Results of our statistical models 1a, 1b, and 1c comparing the outcomes and contexts of peering and explicit begging, including the dependent variables, the effects with associated estimated error and credible interval at 95 and 89% (respectively in bold or italic if they did not cross 0).
^aGroup East.
^bExtractive foraging without tools.
^cExplicit begging.
^dMaternal kin as reference categories, other contrasts are shown on (Table S3).

Back to article page

Table 1 Models testing the function of peering

Search

Quick links